Georgios Kritikos The Nationalism of Greek Language: The two Faces of Janus in the early 20th Century The language issue in Greece provoked by the propagators of the ‘purist’ language (katharevousa) and those of demotic (ver- nacular or common Greek), created confusion and various di- chotomies for almost two centuries in the political, social and edu- cation life of the country. Most of the studies identify an ethnocentric perspective of the language only with the supporters of the classical education as well as of the ‘purist’ language. They are oblivious of the different readings of demoticism, representing two different intellectual and ideological traits, which co-existed in the demoticist movement. They disregard the fact that in the demoticist movement there were not only supporters of the social or class-dividing role of the lan- guage, but also of its national meaning. This study will attempt to analyse the nationalism of the sup- porters of the Greek vernacular and that of the ‘purists’ as well as the differences and the overlapping between them. It will investi- gate how the fulfilment or failure of the militant aspect of the Great Idea from the late nineteenth century until the arrival of the Asia Minor refugees in Greece, formulated in the expansionist ideology of a state of two continents and five seas failed (Great Idea), pro- moted these two different readings of linguistic nationalism inher- ent in the language issue of Greece. As John Edwards notices, “al- though language can be extremely important feature of identity, we cannot endorse the view that a given language is essential for iden- tity maintenance”. 1 From this perspective it is also interesting to 1 J. Edwards, Language, Society and Identity, Oxford, 1985, p. 22.
32
Embed
The Nationalism of Greek Language: The two Faces of Janus ... · 134 Georgios Kritikos examine which was the type of identities and national ideals pro-moted by the specific types
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Georgios Kritikos
The Nationalism of Greek Language:
The two Faces of Janus in the early 20th Century
The language issue in Greece provoked by the propagators of
the ‘purist’ language (katharevousa) and those of demotic (ver-
nacular or common Greek), created confusion and various di-
chotomies for almost two centuries in the political, social and edu-
cation life of the country.
Most of the studies identify an ethnocentric perspective of the
language only with the supporters of the classical education as well
as of the ‘purist’ language. They are oblivious of the different
readings of demoticism, representing two different intellectual and
ideological traits, which co-existed in the demoticist movement.
They disregard the fact that in the demoticist movement there were
not only supporters of the social or class-dividing role of the lan-
guage, but also of its national meaning.
This study will attempt to analyse the nationalism of the sup-
porters of the Greek vernacular and that of the ‘purists’ as well as
the differences and the overlapping between them. It will investi-
gate how the fulfilment or failure of the militant aspect of the Great
Idea from the late nineteenth century until the arrival of the Asia
Minor refugees in Greece, formulated in the expansionist ideology
of a state of two continents and five seas failed (Great Idea), pro-
moted these two different readings of linguistic nationalism inher-
ent in the language issue of Greece. As John Edwards notices, “al-
though language can be extremely important feature of identity, we
cannot endorse the view that a given language is essential for iden-
tity maintenance”.1 From this perspective it is also interesting to
1 J. Edwards, Language, Society and Identity, Oxford, 1985, p. 22.
134 Georgios Kritikos
examine which was the type of identities and national ideals pro-
moted by the specific types of language promoted by the supporters
of demotic and ‘purist’ Greek.
The paper is divided in two parts: firstly, it traces the origins of
linguistic dichotomy provoked by the propagators of the ‘purist’
language and those of vernacular, and explores the language or ed-
ucation ideals that were put forward by both sides and the policy-
makers of the education reforms of the 1910s. Secondly it investi-
gates the same perspectives of the language issue, when Greece
was called upon to settle and integrate foreign-speaking popula-
tions who were included in her territory after the expansion of her
frontiers in the Balkan wars as well as more than million refugees
who fled to Greece from Asia Minor after the end of the Greek-
Turkish war in 1923.
Different readings of linguistic nationalism and language issue in
Greece
The Greek ‘purist’ language was institutionalised from the es-
tablishment of the Greek state. It was perhaps not surprising that
this language became the preferred means of intellectual communi-
cation and triumphed as the official language of the education sys-
tem, the Parliament, the legislation, the press, the Church, and the
university, from the establishment of the Greek state until the
1980s. This language was the creation of a romantic epoch, when
scholars influenced by the values of the French Enlightenment and
Revolution conceptualised the dissemination of Greek culture as a
prerequisite for the political independence of Greece and the re-
vival of a Greek sense of common memory and ethnicity.2 To culti-
vate a cultural affinity with the ancient past, scholars undertook the
task of “transforming the modern Greeks into beings worthy of
Pericles and Socrates”3 and of purifying and “approximating the
language as much as possible to ancient Greek”.4 The linguist Ada-
2 A.D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, USA 1986, pp. 114-115.
3 E. Kedourie, Nationalism in Asia and Africa, New York 1970, p. 40.
4 F. Hertz, Nationality in History and Politics, London 1945, p. 92.
The Nationalism of Greek Language 135
mantios Korais, saw language in terms similar to Fichte5 as a tool
for the manifestation of national character. Being committed to
classical civilisation, he devised an artificial language (later known
as katharevousa) which aimed at ‘debarbarising’ and purifying the
‘vulgar’ popular tongue and approximating it as closely as possible
to the ancient Greek. By codifying the language in this way, he was
able to promote the national ideal since it «reminded the Greeks of
their great ancient past and their own link with it».6
However, as Hobsbawm stresses, Korais was neither Luther nor
Dante and the language he devised, though prestigious, “was ill-
suited to become a national one”.7 Its manufacture implied regres-
sion, reversing linguistic development for the sake of reviving the
glory of classical.8 The result was what Cambell described as “one
of the by-products of the Hellenic myth in modern Greece [which]
has been an ever-worsening confusion of language”.9 But the purist
language continued to be protected by all those who identified
themselves with the prestige, social stratification or the racial kin-
ship with ancient and Christian Greece. It acquired deep roots in
the administrative and professional elite of the country (particularly
among lawyers), which identified itself with its use. As Mavrogor-
datos accurately points out:
generations of government officials, university profes-
sors, and lesser educators, typically of humble peasant
background, have been the most rabid defenders of the
official language, against the popular language. Com-
5 “Fichte took Herder’s general (and neutral) ideas about the nature of
language further, pronouncing value-laden judgements on specific languages in a
nationalistic manner which would be unacceptable today”, quoted from Ch. Hof-
fmann, An Introduction to Bilingualism, New York 1991, p. 203. 6 J.P.C. Clark−A.G. Carey, The Web of Modern Greek Politics, New York
1968, p. 49. 7 E.J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1870. Programme, myth,
reality, Cambridge 1990, p. 60. 8 R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, Cambridge 1983, pp. 100-118.
9 J. Campbell−Ph. Sherrard, Modern Greece, London 1968, p. 243.
136 Georgios Kritikos
mand of the official language was precisely the mark of
their hard-won status.10
In this context, katharevousa remained what Hobsbawm de-
scribed as “the official or culture-language of rulers and elite” as
well as “the official language of Greek state via public secondary
or higher education and other administrative mechanisms”.11
One the other hand, one may suggest that the Greek vernacular
language, fulfilled all the terms of “a language which has not been
standardised and which does not have official status”.12
Until the
establishment of an independent Greek State (1830) the term
‘Greek’ had covered both the vernacular language usually known
as ‘Romaic’, as well as ‘Greek’, which referred to the ancient lan-
guage. This division was to be a source of confusion.13
Campbell
points out that the vernacular language itself was what the people
spoke “as a natural development from the Greek of the Byzantine
period, very much as modern English is a natural and organic de-
velopment from Chaucerian English”.14
In the event, the codification of the demotic language took a lot
of time. As a written language it prevailed primarily in folk stories
and poetry.15
It was only in 1888, that Psycharis −an expatriate phi-
lologist who taught linguistics at the Sorbonne− launched a de-
moticist crusade and attempted to devise a grammar in order to
standardise the demotic language.16
He also declared the unity of
Byzantine history with the other history of Hellenism along with
10
G.Th. Mavrogordatos, Stillborn Republic: Social Coalitions and Party
Strategies in Greece, 1922-1936, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1983, p.
170. 11
Hobsbawm, op.cit., p. 62. 12
J. Holmes, Learning about language. An introduction to sociolinguistics,
London 1992, p. 80. 13
P. Mackridge, The Modern Greek Language: A Descriptive Analysis of
Standard Modern Greek, Oxford 1985, p. 7. 14
Campbell−Sherrard, op.cit., p. 242. 15
H. Seton-Watson, Nations and States: an inquiry into the origins of nations
and the politics of nationalism, London 1977, p. 114. 16
M. Vitti, Ιστορία της Νεοελληνικής Λογοτεχνίας (History of Neo-hellenic
Litterature), Athens 1987, p. 289.
The Nationalism of Greek Language 137
the ‘psycho synthesis of Romios’ and “opposed to the Latin ele-
ments of culture or the archaic language of katharevousa which he
considered responsible for the disregard of the ‘Romios’ cog-
nates”.17
His efforts reflected new currents of thought that were de-
veloping in Greek society during the 1880s, which opposed the
dominance of romanticism and the prevailing archaic cultural
viewpoint. The failure of Greek ‘irredentist’ policy, the activation
of Balkan nationalism, the economic bankruptcy of 1893, and the
Greek defeat in the Greek-Turkish conflict of 1897, all brought
about a profound crisis in Greek society. For many, such events
made imperative the need for an ideological transformation on the
grounds that the traditional nation’s values had led the country to
bankruptcy, defeat and humiliation in every aspect of social life.18
According to Beaton:
from about 1880, alongside the discovery of folklore,
as a repository for ancient customs and beliefs sur-
viving in modern times, comes and interest in the tra-
ditional life and particularly in the language of the
economically backward peasants.19
Although the political ideal of the Great Idea still remained
powerful, a new nationalism, which placed greater emphasis on the
Greek world, both temporal and physical, and on the acceptance of
demoticism, was emerging.
From then on, katharevousa and the supremacy of classical
Greece were rejected as exponents of national culture and the de-
moticist movement acquired a more combative spirit. Authors and
playwrights, such as Nikolaos Politis, Dragoumis, Palamas, Gian-
nopoulos, and others, supported the demoticist movement enthusi-
astically and “argued that they could not write about everyday
17 D. Tziovas, The nationism of the demoticists and the impact on their
literary theory (1888-1930): An analysis based on their literary criticism and
essays, Amsterdam 1986, p. 82. 18
G.B. Leondaritis, «Εθνισμός και Διεθνισμός: Πολιτική ιδεολογία» (Natio-
nalism and Internationalism: Political Ideology), in D.G. Tsaousis (ed.), Ελληνι-
σμός Ελληνικότητα (Hellenism Greekness), Athens 1983, p. 28. 19
R. Beaton, “Romanticism in Greece”, in R. Porter−M. Teich, Romanticism
in National Context, Cambridge 1988, p. 97.
138 Georgios Kritikos
Greek life when most of the vocabulary associated with that life
was excluded”.20
Their writings eloquently expressed their concern
about the creative forces of the Hellenic civilisation, and took the
form of a critical, if not negative, attitude towards the western pat-
tern of development.21
It should be noticed that the importance of
tradition and classicism for the propagators of classical education
and katharevousa remained unshakeable even at the most crucial
points of national humiliation and disappointment for the country.
Even when the shock of financial bankruptcy and the defeat in the
Greek-Turkish war for the liberation of Crete, which generated an
extensive criticism of the Greek social and political system, did not
bring a real change in the outlook of the propagators of the purist
language. Instead, they kept on having faith in the values of the
classical model of education and fighting for the validity of their
national or class values. Thus in 1899 the poet Georgios Drosines
founded an organisation (the Society for the Spread of Useful
Books) which endeavoured to supply reading materials −written in
katharevousa− for the enlightenment of the people in the country-
side.22
However, the castles of ‘purist’ language were very strong in the
Greek state.23
Despite its dynamism, the demoticist movement was
denounced as being involved in a Russian plot to take over Greece.
In 1901, the publication of a translation of the New Testament into
the popular tongue in the Athenian newspaper Acropolis set off ri-
ots and provoked bloodshed. The incident, known as Evangeliaka,
resulted in the fall of the government. Because Queen Olga, who
had asked for the translation, was of Russian origin, there were ac-
cusations of Russian ‘roubles’ levelled against the propagators of
demoticism. The latter were considered as instigators of a pan-
20
Mackridge, op.cit., p. 9. 21
K. Vergopoulos, Εθνισμός και οικονομική ανάπτυξη. Η Ελλάδα στο Μεσο-
πόλεμο (Nationalism and economic development, Greece in the inter-war pe-
riod), Athens 1978, p. 110. 22
G. Augustinos, Consciousness and History: National Critics of Greek
Society, 1897-1914, New York 1977, p. 31. 23
Ch. Lefas, Ιστορία της εκπαιδεύσεως (History of Education, Athens 1942,
pp. 448-449.
The Nationalism of Greek Language 139
slavist influence in favour of the Slavs of Macedonia.24
In this con-
text, katharevousa was perceived as the touchstone of patriotism
and the Greek State attempted to prohibit the corruption of its
‘purist’ official language and the degradation of its traditions. In
1903 the performance of an Aeschylus’ ancient Greek tragedy
(Orestia) in Athens’ Royal Theatre, in a translation that did not re-
spect the norms of ‘purist’ language, ended up with fighting
between the supporters of katharevousa and the police. Two dead
and seven wounded confirmed that language issue continued to stir
nationalist emotions in Greek society. In his inflammatory speech
Professor G. Mistriotis accused the supporters of demotic as athe-
ists who undermined religion and language.25
During that period, the director of the Schools of Girls in Volos,
Alexandros Delmouzos, who had introduced the teaching of Greek
vernacular, considered as member of masonry and atheist. The
Archbishop of Dimitriada who visited the school noticed that the
staff did not kiss his hand and there was no pray in the morning.
Within this context, the demoticist ideals were considered to be
anti-patriotic and anti-religious and the school to be transformed
into German or Frankish.26
Norms for the protection of katha-
revousa as the official state language were introduced into the
Constitution of 1911, which also designated any attempt to change
its status as a punishable offence. Once more, the demoticists were
accused of functioning as Russian agents of pan-slavist propaganda
by the conservative and ‘purist’ commentators. In actual fact,
whenever the royalists −who had historically benefited from a sys-
tem of social stratification based on the command of the ‘purist’
language− were in power, the demoticists were dismissed from the
government offices they held and all demotic reforms were abol-
ished. Thus, the propagators of demoticism were to become subject
to a defamatory campaign by the conservative spokesmen and
24
Augoustinos, op.cit., p. 31. 25
Al. Dimaras (ed.), Η μεταρρύθμιση που δεν έγινε (The reformation which
was not brought about), vol. I, Athens 1974, vol. II, Athens 1987, p. 307. 26
Dimaras, op.cit., pp. 86-88.
140 Georgios Kritikos
Press. Their education establishments (i.e. Marasleios School) were
identified with centres of immorality.27
Later on, the Russian Revolution “only served to make such ac-
cusations all more emotive”.28
After the Russian Revolution a cli-
mate of anti-Communism also prevailed in Greek society. After
that, the language issue became even more a political problem. Ac-
cusations were levelled at demoticists by the press, the ‘purist’ men
of letters and the anti-Venizelist or conservative spokesmen in gen-
eral. Demoticists were also characterised as ‘vulgarists’ and ‘ma-
liaro-communistes’ (long-hair communists), their way of speaking
being denigrated as non-intellectual and uncultured. At that time
many demoticist hopes were deferred. Every attempt to advocate
the vernacular language, even in the social life of Greece, gave rise
to vertical social divisions and sometimes threatened political sta-
bility. It was seen as an attempt to create political anarchism in
Greek society. As a result, the demoticist educators Glinos and
Delmouzos lost their posts in the Ministry of Education and legal
actions were taken against them.29
As the Minister of Education of
the Royalist government, Th. Zaimes, put it “the government
should refrain from obeying the linguistic instincts of the masses
since the adoption of that ‘vulgar’ type of popular language by the
Greek schools would lead to barbarity”.30
As Psomas singles out,
“when the Royalists, however, came to power in 1920, they burned
the text-books, which had been written in that form of language,
and introduced katharevousa”.31
Paradoxically, it was also along nationalist ideals that supporters
of demotic “rejected the use of the katharevousa, the supremacy of
classical Greece and the emulation of the West in favour of a na-
27
A. Fragoudaki, Εκπαιδευτική μεταρρύθμιση και φιλελεύθεροι διανοούμενοι
(Education Reform and Liberal Intellectuals), Athens 1977, p. 74. 28
Mackridge, op.cit., p. 9. 29
M. Tsirimokos, «Ιστορία του Εκπαιδευτικού Ομίλου» (History of the